Your Expectations

[Actual Thought*]

OK then, challenge accepted.



Actually, I was one of the few pushing for an all-out youth movement after #5 retired. I got mocked for saying Nyquist, Tatar, Sheahan and Jurco belonged on the team two seasons ago. Those chickens came home to roost with all the injuries last year when Ken Holland's merry band of old, useless guys who belonged in the MEN'S LEAGUE that is the NHL were completely useless. In the end it was the youth movement in general and Gus Nyquist in particular who kept the playoff streak intact. It wasn't Todd Bertuzzi, Mikael Samuelsson, Jordin Tootoo, Dan Cleary, and Patrick Eaves who were winning games with Z and Pavs and Mule injured for large stretches.

Bottom line: when your GM says dumb **** about a MEN'S LEAGUE in order to explain why prospects aren't in the lineup and then said prospects punch your ticket to the playoffs you should be called to the carpet to explain your dumb ass statements.

That's how you teach young players to be losers. See Edmonton.

OK now you are just feeling sorry for yourself. No one has said the vast majority of these comments. If you truly believe it is the case start a poll or name names. I have never called for Holland to be fired. I have suggested he be encouraged to get bumped up into the org chart, much like Jimmy D did so Holland could get his turn as GM. Holland had a great run and belongs in the HHoF. However it is clear he is far too timid to upgrade the roster. He routinely made significant trades to upgrade the roster prior to the salary cap. Since then he has only made very minor changes. His biggest trade was for Brad Stuart for a 2nd round draft pick. That worked out fine when the Wings had one of the best rosters in the league and simply needed a physical defensive d-man. Acquiring Kyle Quincey for a first round draft pick hoping he could be an offensive d-man was a laughable farce. I said as much in the thread when the trade was announced.



Bottom line: Holland is past his sell-by date. He shouldn't be fired but it's clear he doesn't have the stomach for making the tough decisions necessary to upgrade the roster into a Cup contender.

Hogwash. Half the roster has turned over and there are talented prospects in the pipeline.

Agreed. But when your #1 d-man who plays with two of the best forwards in the league isn't trending to put up 50 points it indicates your team is very bad at puck possession and generating offense from your back end. Los Angeles has offensive d-men, Chicago has offensive d-men, Boston has offensive d-men, Anaheim has offensive d-men. It's no surprise they have all won Cups recently or are tearing up the league right now. What Anaheim is doing in the West is simply amazing.

The Wings are one of the top possession teams in the NHL. They have one of the top PPs in the NHL.

The Wings bent over backwards to placate Jiri Hudler. Val Filppula left for greener pastures. Ken Holland basically said his prospects were rubbish compared to REAL MEN like Todd Bertuzzi, Dan Cleary, Patrick Eaves and Mikael Samuelsson. That sort of "loyalty" bluster is beginning to sound dangerously close to what Dolla Bill Wirtz said when the Blackhawks were in their full on death spiral. If anything Holland is far too loyal and not willing to follow the same logic as his coach: the best players play. Babcock wanted Smith on this team when Holland sent him back down to Grand Rapids. The same thing happened to Xavier Ouellet this year.

Bottom line: an old, out of touch man's loyalty is a young man's slap in the face. The Blackhawks routinely lost guys as soon as they hit free agency. We lost two good young players in Hudler and Filppula. Now I was never a big Hudler fan but the writing is on the wall about how the young guys feel about being told "best guy wins the job" but are then forced to play yet another year in the minors when they have clearly won an NHL roster spot.

Holland chose not to sign both of those players in favor of Brunner and Weiss. Brunner was productive yet Holland was wise to not return to that well.
He chose Weiss over Fil. If Weiss was healthy I considered that an upgrade. No GM can predict injuries. It appears Weiss is back in the line up.

The bar is now to "make the playoffs". Do you honestly expect that bar to rise when Babcock leaves after this season? Do you expect it to rise when Pavs and then Z see their production fall off and eventually retire?

Babcock isn't going anywhere and players get old. Holland has done a pretty good job of replacing them as they do. Some players leave bigger holes than others.

Bottom line: for the remainder of Holland's tenure as GM we will hope to be the Nashville Predators under Barry Trotz: a team that cannot score goals and will need to beat teams 1-0 or 2-1. Oh, but we won't have Shea Weber or Ryan Suter. At that point we'll see how much the players Holland subjected to becoming "over ripe" buy into the concept of loyalty.

I disagree. We have a bunch of promising forwards on the team with more in the pipeline. I think you are ill informed on a whole host of things but overall it is just poor analysis.

 

[silkyjohnson50]

What are we even doing here?

 

[TatarTangle]

You are wrong. If you believe that you have a greater understanding of the team's needs and avenues to fill them than Holland does, you likely over value your understanding by an enormous margin. A margin of such magnitude that it is impossible to take your argument seriously. "Constructive criticism" is intended to teach the criticized. Do you really believe that you are teaching Ken Holland how to be a good GM?
No sports franchise in the universe would fire Ken Holland given his performance. None. Zero, Zip, Nada. Here? The majority think it is a good idea to "teach" Holland the ultimate lesson.

I'm wrong because...you say so? You're grasping for straws. Have I ever said I have a greater understanding of what the team's needs are? Spare me the "constructive criticism" is to teach the criticized ********. You're grasping for straws. Yea, I have daiily ****ing phone calls with Ken Holland. Get a clue.

What kind of fan base has a 25 year run of excellence and wants to fire the GM?

An irrational one

What kind of fan base weakly surrenders to the new upstarts given the track record of their team is that of the Detroit Red Wings?

Pessimism? Nah, no pessimism here.

I look at the last few years as a rebuild. It is obvious to me that the rebuild is going well. The team has gotten younger and better. I can say with confidence that the Wings will win another cup soon because they are run by people who KNOW how to build a champion and are committed to do so. I don't fault Holland for signing a few bridge contracts to ice a playoff team on our way to where we are now. I also don't fault Holland for allowing his prospects to ripen. The Wings have been a factory of long term NHL careers. I suspect there is more than luck to explain it.

Yea, he's done a great job drafting and devolping players. He's always been good at that.

 

[TatarTangle]

lol In no way shape or form is this proof that a RH shot is 100% necessary. It just happens to be something that the last however many cup winnings team has had.

lol it has been every team in the history of the NHL lol

It's like saying that because every single team that has won the cup for however many years has had at least one player that likes to iron his socks, it's proof that it is 100% necessary to have a player on your team who likes to iron his socks in order to win the cup.

lol that sentence makes no sense as having iron in one's socks has no bearing on the game of hockey. Handness does, however.

Or before females were leaders, that a true leader needed to be a male because all other leaders before that were male.

Or that if I walk into a room and talk to 10 successful lawyers and they all drink coffee that's proof that it is 100% necessary to drink coffee to be a successful lawyer.

What in the flying **** does any of that have to do with the game of hockey and how it's played? FFS.

Yeah sure, having a right-handed shot is a benefit and that's why most teams like to have some right-handed shots but in no way does that make it an actual requirement to win the cup lol It might increase the odds of winning because it has a strategic advantage but so do a million other things. Increasing the odds of something occurring is a totally different story than it actually being a condition required for that thing to occur lol

lol It's funny because you're proudly strutting around here in a very condescending manner (I have facts and history on my side!), acting like your argument is so supremely flawless, when the very nature of the argument is flawed.

Just because a group of things has a certain quality in common doesn’t mean that quality is a requirement for that group to exist. That’s basic critical thinking skills you learn in high school lol

He doesn't need to prove anything to you or provide you with any evidence. You are the one making the claim and although you've cited 'facts' and 'history' they don't actually prove your claim whatsoever. I've already given you several examples of why that type of reasoning is flawed and I could think of a billion more. I think it’s probably time you take your ego down a notch bud before you embarrass yourself anymore.

lol lol lol lol you also learn what a correlation is lol lol lol lol

lol and that's great you can think of a billion more but comparing a lawyer drinking coffee to what hand a hockey player shoots doesn't work. lol apples and oranges

lol and he's the one that that made the claim first. I pointed out every single team in history won it with at least one RHD. Until a team wins it that's all LHS you can say you need a RHS.

 

[TatarTangle]

What are we even doing here?

Being pessimistic

 

[SoupNazi]

And...since this has degenerated into the "I'm a better fan than you" debate, let's shut 'er down.